Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : ProNetLink...PNLK...Click here to enter -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sai P. yandamuri who wrote (999)	8/15/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: The Flying Crane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 40688

Sai, your persistent concern regarding PNL management may be a little outdated here. Your using Apple Computers as an example of management's blunder means you are still thinking of management in a traditional sense- top down management. IMHO, top down management has come a long way and is heading toward extinction when applying it to the world of internet e-commerce. In a nutshell, top down management wants their companies to make money based on what they think is best for the companies. Apple Computers' management thought hardware was where the big money was. With hindsight, it was a wrong decision. Any company with a physical product to sell must use a combination of top down management and customers' feedback to succeed. And the problem with top down decision is that it involves some hit and miss scenarios. Customers' feedbacks were crude and inefficiency back then and were even ignored if the number of complaints were not significant. When was the last time you actually sit down and write a physical letter to complain about the product you bought? Or how about this, when was the last time you actually call the company and complain about the product you just bought knowing that you will be put on hold for'ever'? Of course, if the product costs us a significant amount of our wallet, we will all have to endure the hardship of complaining to the company. OK, you said What is your point?" My point is that for businesses to be successful in offering services through the website, they MUST listen to the customers! You can no longer apply top down management to the internet businesses. Management job is as simple as doing everything they can to give what the customers want! Their job is to simply listen to customers' feedbacks. Because of the efficiency of the internet access, it is SO EASY for customers to just type a quick email to the company to complain or offer constructive feedback to the services offer by the website. And these customers will become loyal to the website if management takes immediate action to modify the services to accommodate the customers. Lack of feedback is no longer an excuse for management to dwell on; instead, management of any company offering internet services must dwell on customers' feedback to survive and prosper. Because if they don't, other companies will simply offer another website offering what the customers want! In summary, IMHO, the proper way to evaluate any company management who deal with internet services or businesses is to see how quickly they implement customers' requests and feedbacks. So far, ProNetLink has demonstrated their ability to change gear and incorporate customers' feedbacks such as free word search and other changes. I also understand that PNL is also working on Phase 3 and 4 to incorporate more of what customers want that has not been discussed in this thread yet. Until we see evidence that PNL management is not responding to customers' feedbacks, I see no reason to be concerned with management ability as this point. As a matter of fact, I see more reason to feel confident about my investment in PNLK at this point because of management's willing to modify the website for customers' satisfaction even when it is delaying the phase 2 development. Prosperity to ALL! Thank also to you and terri acey for the well wishes.

To: Sai P. yandamuri who wrote (999)	8/16/1998 9:29:00 AM
From: Malko	Respond to of 40688

Sai, regarding you below statement: <<I don't know a whole lot about OTC. But on NASDAQ, I have not seen any company started trading unless they have at least one successful product in the market and have revenue stream already built in. So that leaves 110% speculation on those OTC stocks that have products in developmental stage, let alone any revenue stream. >> Its not quite true. Many IPO's on NASDAQ Small Cap, raised $5million for start up Companies that had no revenue stream but just a product to market. With the $5 million raised they met the requirements and traded on Small cap, which is often less liquid than many OTC BB stocks. Then I can give you PM some symbols of NASDAQ penny stocks if you wish. Then you have the Million of $$ Companies that scam Investors even on NYSE ( IOM). So BB, Nasdaq, NYSE, AMEX, isn't always a reference of better Companies. But the Internet stocks is changing many things in the trading world. Before the Internet, BB stocks never had any attention like today, PNLK and others, traded more shares and more value than many big board stocks. Regards Malko

To: Sai P. yandamuri who wrote (999)	8/16/1998 1:02:00 PM
From: ztect	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 40688

Sai, Regarding your comments regarding IPO's, I've thought about this quite a bit myself. If the idea is such a powerful one as we all seem to agree, why couldn't PNL attract venture capital to get the company operational prior to bringing an IPO to the NASDAQ? Now answering this question can reinforce any point of view one wishes to take. This would be a good first question to ask PNL directly. However, the answer to this question seems to beget other questions concerning the relationship with partners. Namely, if a small company on an OTC board can align itself with recognized companies, why does it need venture capital especially if those companies are willing to accept stock in lieu of cash payment? There are a plethora of other BB stocks, that are allied with the likes of IBM (QCSC), Siemans and WorldCom (FNTN), Motorala (ALYA) and Mitsubishi (SGII) just for example. One then has to question the nature of these allegiances. One may also want to know what indemnity these large companies have to protect themselves and their reputations through their participation with such speculative issues. The legalese in these contracts between the un-established companies and the established ones must be quite immense. Contractually there probably are certain advantages for these established companies to deal with public companies. There are probably stipulations about the timeliness of reporting, et cetera. There all also higher rewards if the ideas pan out. Plus the product or service may come quicker to the end user. (IMO timeliness, the time it takes, is a major reason why many companies go this route). Without seeing the contracts, it is hard to truly ascertain the full advantage to any of the participants by going public before the business is functional. Malko made a good point by noting how the Internet, chat boards, and Internet trading has drawn more attention to smaller issues for better or worse. So with all this attention, this may mean that we will probably see many more new companies coming to the market prior to full functionality. This in essence makes many small investors "second tier" venture capitalists. As venture capitalists, we will be rewarded (or we will lose) proportional to the risk or venture we wish to take. We also will constantly have to reassess how long and how committed we choose to be to any particular idea before we increase or decrease are financial exposures. Therefore in accessing PNL, you have to start with the other companies associated with PNL: D&B, Dow Jones, Rare Medium, Royal Impressions, Unz & Co. The full extent of the relationship between any of these companies and PNL isn't (nor should it be) public knowledge. I'd have to assume that all the above companies have full indemnity for any actions taken against PNL. However, there have been many comments on this thread stating that if PNL was an IPO it would come to market at such and such a price since other Internet IPO's came to market at such high valuations. The rational for such statements was based on the fact that these other IPO's had no earnings to date. As we both concur, these other companies were functioning private companies that were taken public. Comparing PNL to Geocities, Inktomi, or others is kind of absurd, considering the tract records of these other companies and the clients they already have. I don't make this statement to denigrate PNL in anyway. I make this statement to emphasize that these are completely different scenarios. (You can't compare apples to oranges or eggs, for that matter). Now what is very interesting considering Internet companies is how large companies like Disney are buying into the established names. So the large companies are both buying into speculative BB internets, when these companies are being initiated, and into the "brand name" internets which are already established. Please let me know what you think about any of my above thoughts. z btw- Xerox screwed up long before MAC had a chance. So regarding top down management that "Mr. Patience" noted, the Xerox Corp gets one of the all time blunder awards for not recognizing what was being developed by their own company's researchers (the GUI interface, for example).